Apple vs. the federal government is not a partisan issue

WASHINGTON — California Democrats quickly took opposing sides in the battle that has erupted between Apple and the FBI over unlocking an iPhone used by terrorists in the San Bernardino massacre, reflecting deep conflicts over how to reconcile privacy and security in the age of smart phones and freelance terrorism.

National security hawks such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, want stronger government tools to combat terrorism, while liberal Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans, including some in the Tea Party wing, support stronger privacy protections on constitutional grounds.

The government is basing its demand on a law dating to 1789 called the All Writs Act, a catch-all statute that authorizes federal courts to issue whatever orders they find necessary to fill in legal gaps left by Congress, so long as they are “agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the San Jose Democrat who represents Silicon Valley and often champions the tech industry’s causes, denounced the government’s case, calling it “an astonishing overreach” by federal authorities and blasting the government’s reliance on an 18th century statute to secure a court order.

The encryption issue has come up in criminal cases, and in ordinary deaths, where family members have sought to extract financial documents or cherished photos from the device of a deceased loved one.

Lofgren said the House cast two votes recently on amendments where majorities of Republicans and Democrats voted against forcing tech companies to create so-called back doors that allow encryption on devices to be penetrated.

Since the San Bernardino shooting, Feinstein has been pushing legislation to require social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter to alert federal authorities if they spot online terrorist activity.